The Racism Motion: A Response from the Inside

I received an email from someone who was “in the know” relative to some of the decisions that I have been critical of here. I’ll call him Jason Bourne (Obviously, NOT his real name). He responded in a reasoned and forthright way to some of the comments that I (and others) have made here about Dwight McKissic’s motion about racism in the SBC.

It is really important to see all sides of things. Jason gently shared a different perspective than the one I had formed and I learned from it. He has asked that I protect his identity but granted me permission to share some of his thoughts and perspectives as long as I protect his identity. I am going to do that. I will not reveal his identity, but I can tell you that he is someone who knows what he is talking about and his information gives us some insight into the reasons for the decision that was made.

Here are the highlights of what he told me.

We all want to see racism ended.

Jason said:

I agree with much of your post that the SBC must do a better job of: 1) Putting more minorities in leadership positions and committee assignments; 2) Being more sensitive to minority concerns; and 3) Eliminating overt and covert institutional racism in SBC life.

I appreciate that people in positions of authority understand and realize that there is a problem. I do not believe (and I hope I made this clear in my post) that the EC or any others in SBC leadership are intentionally racist. I am sure there are still racists amongst us. I think they are the minority. I think our problem is that we simply don’t understand it from the perspective of people of color and the difficulties they have in Baptist life. We do not understand how they feel marginalized and excluded in SBC life. We just don’t see the extent and seriousness of the problem. Jason agrees that the pace of racial progress in the SBC has been too slow.

This is not an us vs them, good guys vs bad guys thing.

Jason does not agree with the means to the end.

The EC has decided not to recommend that Dwight McKissic’s motion be adopted by the convention. I called that a mistake. This author believes that the motion is unnecessary to accomplish the desired effect.

He gave the following rationale.

1) He thinks that adding racism to Article 3 is unnecessary. Our governing documents allow for any church’s messengers to be challenged and refused on the basis of lack of compliance to the BF&M or other Baptist policy. Article XV of the BF&M targets racism. So, if a church is practicing discrimination, its messengers could be refused and it could be declared not in cooperation with the SBC on the basis of our current governing documents. Essentially, he is arguing that the bylaws change would be unnecessary and redundant.

Of course, that same argument could be made about the homosexuality aspect of Article 3. Our BF&M also would make clear that homosexuality is unacceptable behavior. But if the Article 3 mention of homosexuality is probably largely redundant as well.

Anyway, I see his point. I guess the biggest reason to adopt the motion would be symbolic – for the statement that we would be making. But maybe there is another way to get the job done.

2) He points out the likelihood that if we add racism to the homosexuality article, there will likely be a parade of such motions in the years to come, as people want to spell out sin after sin in Article 3.

Jason’s suggestions for a solution.

1) He agrees with my feelings about some kind of racial quota system. I’ve not heard anyone advocate that. Jason suggests that our various nominating committees be intentional about nominating people of color to serve as trustees and officers. He referenced the Early church’s solution to the problem of unhappy Greek widows.

This is exactly what the Jerusalem church did in Acts 6 when Greek-speaking Jews felt slighted in the daily distribution of food for the widows. The apostles appointed all Greek-speaking Jews as the seven deacons—early church affirmative action “to the extreme.”

The church responded to the dissatisfaction of the Hellenized Jews by appointing Hellenized servants to oversee the ministry to them. That is the kind of intentional solution we need here.

2) I am making a deduction from his statements, but if specific acts of racial discrimination or bigotry come to light, we have a process in place to prosecute those. All it takes is for someone to move that messengers from a particular church not be seated on the basis of their violation of Article XV of the BF&M.

My Conviction

As this discussion has progressed, I have become convinced of one thing. Racism, discrimination and bigotry are not a black problem. (Of course, there are bigoted blacks, but the SBC problem is not with them). The problem is a white problem.

Since the problem is a white problem, so should be the solution. It is not Dwight McKissic’s job to force us to make progress on racial issues. It is our job to end racism and bigotry in our midst.

It is our job to tell people who discriminate that we consider their actions heinous and a sin against Almighty God.

It is our job not to laugh at racially insensitive jokes – or to excuse those who tell them.

It is our job to see that blacks and other people of color are included not only in SBC life but SBC leadership.

While “Jason Bourne” does not agree with what I said about the motion that was referred to the EC, he agrees with almost everything I said.

He agrees that racism is a heinous sin and real problem in SBC life.

He agrees that progress must be made and that it has not been adequate to this point.

He agrees that we need to be intentional about our efforts to deal with racism.

So, here is my question:

What can we do that will turn the tide? What can we do to effectively deal with the problem of racial injustice in the SBC?

Great article. Since we are already able to deal with racism through Article XV, how about a resolution offered on the floor of the convention, that gives messengers a chance to publicly respond to your concerns?

Well, if we had a specific church that there was documented evidence of a continuing action of discrimination, you could challenge those messengers at Phoenix, and just see how that’s handled. If the EC is serious that since Article XV applies, then there should be some backing. If they’re just fluffing, then….

Talk to each of our state’s Nominating Committee people and challenge them, personally, to reach out and consider minority participants.

Finally: find an individual who would be willing to be nominated for one of the “symbolic” leadership roles and nominate him. Be it for Pres of Pastor’s Conference, SBC, a VP, whatever—-and if we need to hold on to that so that Bryant Wright’s feelings don’t get hurt this year, then hold that one for next year.

Or get real aggressive and challenge the nominating committee report on the floor over it being overly white. Not suggest a specific person be replaced, but just raise the question, from the floor, if the nominating committee truly did the best they could to see that representation happen. File it as a “speak against the motion to adopt” and challenge people to vote against the whole slate over that issue. You’d have many still vote for it because they wouldn’t want to cause trouble, but what if it didn’t just go through and picked up a percentage of opposition? That would communicate that the boat is rocking.

Again, it would probably still pass—but if you try to replace 1 individual you make it about them. If you just speak against and encourage a “no vote” to communicate dissatisfaction–maybe 10 or 20% against? Plus a name or two on the record—that perhaps will result in opening of more communication.

Of course, any “speak against” will be met with “We prayed about it and feel these are God’s people for these jobs” but….

There’s a few. I’ll be praying for you, and if you do that, I’ll watch the live stream.

It might be an excellent idea to challenge the Nominating Committe’s report on the floor if a particular nominee were somehow not the person who ought not be nominated. It might be an excellent idea to nominate someone in place of another because of some “real” reason. But wouldn’t it be a shame just to “get real aggressive and challenge the nominating committe report on the floor over it being overly white” just to “communicate that the boat is rocking.” Our convention has spoken to race issues and we have repented of issues in our past. I believe that there are many who are working in a positive way to move forward. Just rocking the boat over a committee report being overly white is not constructive and is counter to the really good idea that we judge a person not by the color of his skin but the content of his character. When I vote on the leaders of the convention, I try to take note of things that reveal a person’s theology, missions support (CP giving), church health, evangelism, ministry, previous service in the convention…things that speak to the character of the person not race. I have voted for minority candidates and the even the nominee who was not the “megachurch guy”.
Rocking a boat just to rock it has a way of tipping a boat over. The SBC may need to be more conscientious about many things but it does not need just to be “rocked.”
It is a good idea to have each state’s Nominating Committee people to look for the best candidates to serve our convention but I don’t think there is any real value in just rocking the boat.

You will find that Doug and I tend to exchange sarcastic comments of questionable intelligence. So, if you see an exchange between the two of us, you might need to filter through the nonsense just a little.

The problem, of course, lies mostly with Doug. I’m trying to mentor him.

Right, because there’s never been any problems with how the nominating committee has worked before, have there?

Or did I misunderstand the history of the SBC?

At some point, folks, this has to be more than talk on a blog. In one post we have statements that indicate the SBC has a problem with racism, that we just aren’t seeing any effort to include any diversity in our leadership. So, who picks the leadership?

Certainly, one should work up from the most peaceful and calm manner of action, but when that doesn’t work, are you willing to rock a boat? If the ship is sinking due to negligence, shouldn’t it be rocked? Or something? Or is it that we’d rather see the SBC remain dominated by one ethnic group to its ultimate demise because, heaven forbid, we ‘rock the boat.’

Sorry–I thought the discussion was one of considering action that would make a point, both to those who think that resolutions actually were enough and to those who have said that the resolutions aren’t enough—that there are people who are willing to stand with them. I missed the point entirely.

March 5, 2011 12:34 am

Jack Wolford

We are not going to grow SBC churches in numbers or in receipts until the EC is ready to take steps that will show the public we have changed. Messing with Article 3 or making charges against a church at a meeting in Arizona isn’t going to retain or draw people at home. If the EC wanted to fix things they would take meaningful steps. It is easier to leave and go somewhere else than to “fight” a protracted shouting match anywhere much less at church. People go to church to worship not to argue and become an expert in Robert’s Rules. There are other choices for people far easier than that and EC knows this will disappear because they are too much of an obstacle for church members or pastors -white or black -to overcome.

I think I’m going to bow out of this discussion—I’m seeing this a little more revolutionary than is probably right.

I see the point about trying to maintain peace, but I think at some point we’re going to have to do more than “Resolve” if we’re going to see change. How you do that without making waves or causing a fuss, I’m not sure. For 160+ years we’ve been wrestling with this, since 1865 we’ve been supposed to have been getting past slavery, since 1995, my entire time in Southern Baptist ministry, we’re supposed to have repented and embraced.

In 16 years, we’re where we’ve always been. However, I find that to be a general norm of the life of the denomination. Right now, I think if you asked me about any issue, my suggestion would be to either “Make a motion” from the floor or respond to the appropriate report on the floor. I see lots of words, and have seen lots of words, over 15 years.

I see precious little action. It’s much like where we are with questions about CP funding and a few other issues—you harm as much good as you correct bad when you try to act on it. The collateral damage is too much to risk. Yet I can’t help feel like some of this is the peace of Hezekiah—we’re just passing the destruction on to the next generation.

Will the next generation of Christians support a denomination with a the heritage we have and track record we’ve got on racial and ethnic issues? Will they support where we are now with leaders that don’t answer questions, secret committees, and politics in play on most issues in place of spirituality?

In my heart, I know we can’t just do something. Reasonable, considered, and measured decisions must be made, calmly thought-out words spoken, and cautious, loving action taken where needed.

Just try to make sure you don’t wait too late to act. The SBC has managed to field the largest, and even with all the faults, most efficient (for its size) missions-sending and preacher-educating systems in the modern western Christianity. It would be a shame for future generations to learn of us only for the mistakes that doomed us.

I’m out for the weekend, a lot of work to do, a lot of things to consider. So, no, I’m not responding to your response to my response, and yes, I am driving by and walking away. Pick at that as you please.

The first thing that needs to happen is people’s hearts changing. So prayer is the first thing we need.

The next thing is to increase trust between the American subcultures as they are represented in the churches. This generally always takes time. Also, there seems to be an inverse ratio between the level of radical institutional steps that are taken and the time it takes for trust to develop among members of the institution.

South Africa is an example of how something as radical as confession and forgiveness in the court system has transformed the nation in a relatively short period of time. There may still be vestiges of racism there, but I’ve ministered with black and white South Africans alike who pray, worship and minister together in all sacrificial love who also confess to having been distrustful of and hating each other.

So it can happen. Pray relying on God, teach the truth, treat each other with all humility and contrition seeking each other’s good before your own. And dare to trust God to work through and in each other.

March 5, 2011 4:01 pm

Jack Wolford

A start would be to approve McKissick’s Motion in stead of applying “lip service” to it. Costs nothing.

I have not read all the articles and comments related to racism in the SBC, so I may miss the point. But, I will make some observations. If we as a denomination were institutionally racist, we would not see any ethnic congregations affiliated with the SBC – no black, hispanic, asian, etc. Further, we would not have any members of our churches other than white folk. On the other hand, we do have Southern Baptists who are racist. In fairness, let’s ask the following question: does the fact majority black congregations have few white members mean they are racist? Further, is our preaching/worship style more of an issue than racism? Can we compel blacks to join our churches if they are not attracted to what they see? In 1981, the congregation of which I was a pastor had an African-American serving as a deacon in addition to several mixed race marriages. Nobody had a problem with what we were doing. Our association had a large black congregation fully integrated into the life of our association. Racism among Southern Baptists is not nearly the problem some of these posts would have us believe it is. Such a narrow approach to an issue such as racism misses so many of the subtleties.

An African-American professor made a statement in a class I took many years ago. He said until we, blacks and whites, begin inviting one another into our homes for fellowship, we will never see racism and bigotry abolished in our churches. He was correct. Racism will not be ended by resolutions at our annual meeting. Racism will end when we each do something through personal action about the problem.

As my friend Gene says, I’m just essayin’.

March 5, 2011 11:03 am

Jack Wolford

If there was ever an issue for pastors to rally around one of their own, who has been hurt and who of you knows how hard, then this is it. SBC is your denomination to brag about or fix or watch as it wastes away. Stand up for a brother pastor who has been wronged by the “Lilly white leadership” and form a circle around him or you might lose him forever – in my humble opinion. Time for a coffee.

March 5, 2011 11:28 am

Jack Wolford

Oh ! And by the way what happens in this regard makes absolutely no difference to me whatsoever as I can stay or just move on as our world is doing and read about the SBC in the national news whenever their importance supports it. When was the last article you read about the SBC in national news ? I’m not bitter at all just being truthful.

March 5, 2011 12:56 pm

Sima

I am a thirty-three year old African American female. I have been a member of predominately white SBC churches for most of my life. I hold a MA in Biblical Counseling from SEBTS. There have been many times I have also been tempted to “throw in the SBC towel”, especially during seminary. I believe that this is where God would have me, so I remain, despite the feelings of marginalization and exclusion. I remember weeping with joy as I read the 1995 resolution on racial reconciliation, but now I just wonder if it was “lip service’. Diverse leadership is a starting point, it communicates to minorities that we are seen and hopefully heard. Intentional steps need to be taken, not just for the “sake of the SBC” but for the sake of our gospel witness.

March 5, 2011 4:14 pm

Jack Wolford

The reason I can’t speak like you can is first your educated , second you have the experience , and third you have the nerve to stick things out and speak publically of your opinions . I admire your tenacity which you share with many others of color and which helps make this country what it is.

March 5, 2011 7:47 pm

Ron Hale

As a former North American Missionary that related to many different people groups from time to time … I found that the many different National Fellowship meetings … hinder all of us from getting to know each other and enjoying each others fellowship.

For instance … when you go to the SBC and African-American pastors are at the their National Fellowship meeting and the Koreans are at theirs, the Hispanics are at theirs, the Messianic Jews are at theirs, the American Indians are at theirs ….. etc.

It becomes very difficult to learn from each other, know each other, and help each other.

Just pointing out a barrier.

March 5, 2011 9:39 pm

Jim Champion

I am 100% in favor of passing this motion. I also think that the SBC needs to be intentional about going out of it’s comfort zone to appoint individuals of all races to boards and agencies as well as in Nashville.

One problem I see for those in power of the SBC has to do with theological differences in historically black and white churches. Things like PPL and women in ministry. It is not uncommon for a black baptist church to have one or more female pastors ( a stance I am
comfortable with) but one that is discordant for our current SBC leaderrship. The PPL issue wound up in Dwight’s resignation from SWBTS

My question to Dave Miller is are you willing to widen the tent on things like PPL and women in ministry to promote those from other traditions?

I am a part of the New Work team for my local association here in GA. Since we pathetically don’t have any African-American congregations in our Association, which is located ironically in one of the most predominately African-American counties in GA, we’ve decided to focus our attention on planting African-American SBC churches. We brought in a consultant who is the first DOM in the SBC to preside over the first majority African-American local SBC association in the entire national convention (very exciting, might I add).

Anyway, he addressed the idea of female “co-pastors” in traditional Black Churches. He said his association runs across this all the time in the credentialing process. Most of these Churches who have female “co-pastors” are established in order to allow the widows of former pastors or the future widow of the current pastor to continue to receive compensation after their death (he explained that there is little to no concept of pastoral retirement accounts in the traditional Black Church). He called this “continuation” and said that it is simply a cultural thing in most Churches. These “co-pastors” usually don’t preach and rarely have any leadership responsibilities at all.

The DOM said this was a huge point of contention initially for the credentialing committees, but once they recognized the function of these female “co-pastors” they were able to move forward (and the SBC resources for retirement actually helped to convince many of these Churches in his association to do away with the “co-pastor” label).

March 6, 2011 2:11 am

Jim Champion

It may vary by region, I have been to a few black baptist churches and have heard the women pastors preach. Except for the fact that the women preached ( and most were big Obama supporters – as well as democrats).
My point is that there is a very large cultural/political divide that the SBC is going to have to cross if we are going to walk our talk on racial reconciliation. I’m all for it, however many of our theological puritans will have a hard time

To Sima: Your presence in the SBC is an encouragement to those whites who have prayed for an end to this racism and segregation thing for many years. The change is happening; it is occuring – even if it is abominably slow. The church I attend has about 20 Blacks in its membership. I am hoping that soon they will elect one a deacon. If I have anything to do with it, they will. But it can’t be based on color; it has to be based on qualification – though I am persuaded already that we definitely have some that are qualified already. I have been reading Stephen Oates biography of Martin Luther King, and I noted where King cited Arnold Toynbee in his A Study of History where he declared that it might be the Negro who will give the new spiritual dynamic to Western Civilization that it so desperately needs to survive. Eric Metaxas biography of Bonhoeffer underscores the impact of the African Americans’ commitment to the Bible along with the Negro Spirituals as very influential factors in the life of that martyr. My Prospectus for the Doctoral Dissertation at Columbia Univ. in 1971 proposed to set forth the tremendous Christian characters that God had produced among African Americans in the time of slavery and afterwards. It should have come as no surprise that with King’s leadership they would adopt non-violnece as the one sure way to get at the heart of Americans in order to bring about the desired changes which it did. It is the legacy of their Christian witness that has effected the ongoing change which is surely and inevitably bringing to an end the prejudice and the propaganda that maintained an evil social and political agenda for so long, and African Americans deserve all the credit for that result. The process has begun, and, barring some unforeseen reverses, it is now moving with all the force of inevitability. There will be no going back to the society of prejudice, God willing. When I began pastoring most churches would not have allowed a Black to attend their worship services, except for funerals. I pastored a church that had had a Black man and his wife as members at one time. That was some 20 or more years prior to 1962. My second church in the mid-60s had had the Black Chaplain/Professor (?) at te local Black University that Iattended to speak at their services. The chairman of deacons had been the army and was not all bothered by having his buddy in his tent be a Black man. My third church where I did my doctor of ministry project on Christian Love and Race Relations had a family squabble over a black attending a wedding, and the deacons said to theobjector that he could have certain things his way (e.g, theprevious pastor would not do the wedding), but he could not have his way on the matter of the Blacks attending the wedding. That church would go on to have Blacks attend now and then without any opposition. My fourth church had a Black man and his White Wife attend, but there was definitely some with prejudice against that. Even so no one spoke to the couple in a negative way that I knew of. My son’s church had some static about Blacks attending, but clearly if the children become friends with Blacks in school they will bring their friends home and to church which has happened. Sooner or later Blacks will be on Boards, etc.; it is merely a question of time. They will be leaders in serving the Lord as they were at times even under the terrible experience of slavery, so much so that Whites then would sometimes purchase their freedom so they could preach…even to Whites. If that occurred under slavey, think what they will do now in the dawn of the end of prejudice.

As to female Co-pastors, I can’t speak, but as to some African American Female pastors, I can. There are some who do pastor and preach, and Southern Baptists are going to run into this reality. They can reject it as not fitting in with their present day understanding of Scripture (which some to think is the eternal understanding), and it will limit their effort. They must also realize that they are rejecting their past. After all, the eldresses of Sandy Creek Baptist Church did preach, too, even if it was “exhorting the congregation without the slighest show of usurping authority.” The exegesis in the back ground, in part might be traceable to Matthew Poole, a Puritan Commentator, who stated “I suffer not a woman to teach or usurp authority” this is true, except she be a specially called and endowed female such as and he named the prophetesses and female leaders in the Old and New Testaments. Part of our problem is the restricted nature of our methodology of interpretation, our fear of offending God (identified in this case with male traditional dominance), and our failing to perceive something that the pastor of the Pilgrims, John Robinson, noted, namely, “Who knows what new light is getting ready to break forth from God’s word?” Since the word of God written reflects the intellectually infinite depths of the Omniscient Being who inspired or, better?, expired or breathed it out in the words of His selected human authors, we should expect that there are depths in it with meanings yet to be discerned (due to our always admittedly limited powers of discernment and perception and the fact that sometimes you just have to be brought to a place where you can really grasp what is being said). Looking at the writings from the perspective of Omniscience, one has to admit that the problem is with its clarity (we have a problem in determining depth in a transparent medium as it can seem to be barely deep enough for a child to play in while it is over the head of the most advanced thinkers). The most radical, liberal, conservative, moderate, fundamental, political, philosophical, intellectual, rational, logical, practical, evangelical, Sovereign Grace, evangelistic, and missionary work every written is this book, the Bible. Too bad, we are afraid to believe that it is so open. I can just hear the knives of illusion being sharpened.

March 6, 2011 11:21 pm

Sima

I have finished reading Dr McKissic’s proposed resolution from his blog.” RESOLUTION OF REPENTANCE FOR RACIST THEOLOGY AND AN AFFIRMATION OF ETHNIC MINORITIES IN THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION. If the actual resolution submitted to the convention contained “the affirmation of ethnic minorities in the SBC” and was not considered because article 3 mentions oppostion to racism, I may be ready to “pick up my towel”. The 1995 resolution and oppostion to racism mentioned in article 3 of the BF&M says “ we’re sorry”. The affirmation resolution would’ve said “we’re glad you are here”. I have endured many questions and,at times, alienation from fellowAfrican-Americans, while at the same time feeling, never quite welcomed among my Anglo brethren. I know progress on this issue has been slow. However, I feel a little like Dr. Martin Luther King did in his response to the white clergyman,and their request to wait for civil rights. “For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never”. I will continue to wait ,however, because I believe that God is still working to redeem the SBC’s past in regards to this issue. Two books I recommend, especially for my Anglo brethren, to shed some light on this issue: “Divided By Faith by Michael Emerson and “Reconciliation Blues” by Edward Gilbreath